Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:12:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1274 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher L. Weeks" wrote:
> In what way do you disagree with my take on democracy? It's the rule >of
> the people - by vote - so as long as 51% of the people who vote think
> it's OK to kill me, then politically (if not morally) it is. Right? Wrong?
It's a simplified definition, I think you are talking about direct democracy, I
was talking more of a constitutional democracy, where the people have certain
rights (a.k.a. Bill of Rights) and protection from being murdered and so forth.
A representative democracy is where the U.S. is now. I think your example is
more of a mob rule, perhaps.
> Libertopia would be an improvement. I prefer a system in which entities
> (people, generally) contract with one another to provide services
> (roads, protection, insurance, gardening, education, groceries,
> whatever). I like the idea of PPL (privately produced Law) societies
> where everyone is free and no amount of voting gives others the right to
> destroy me and my property.
OK. I didn't know for sure what you were talking about. That clears it up. It
has merit, I don't think it would happen outside of collapse of the current
systems, or a revolution. Just think, we could have a Lego city-state! YES! :)
I say Gary Istok should be our historian!
> I would prefer that those who don't approve of a behavior vote with
> their dollars. If pharmaceutical company X does fetal tissue testing,
> then you should write a letter to them and refuse to use their drugs.
>
> Of course you can turn that back on me and replace the concept of fetal
> tissue testing with murder and I can't really defend that murder should
> only be financially avoided. I agree with Larry that no system will be
> perfect, I just think I can make it better.
Fair enough. I don't like the idea, are there companies that are doing that now?
> I'm not either. I think people should be more responsible.
I am 100% agreed with you on that, Chris.
> Well, I can just pick any of those services and describe a scenario by
> which the service can be privatized. Let's go with defense (I don't
> differentiate nation and personal, so I'll roll them into one): I
> contract with one of the local security providers in my area. In turn,
> they contract with one another to provide backup if something really big
> happens and they all need to band together. They also (individually, or
> collaboratively) contract with larger security providers like the
> privatized state police, the privatized navy, etc. Clearly enumerated
> duties and payments exist up and down the chain of contracts so that
> everyone knows who their customers are and what is owed to whom. Read
> the short story, The Ungoverned, by Vernor Vinge. It can be found in
> _Across Realtime_ or _True Names and Other Dangers_ for a good fictional
> account of such a system.
OK, I see now. Again, it has merit, I don't know if it will ever happen or not.
> > I do not believe in
> > anything the Democratic Party believes in,
> Really? What about equal rights based on sex, race, creed, etc? That
> was a change championed by the left and resisted by the right. There
> are a lot of traditionally 'left' issues that I favor. Many of them are
> now adopted as generally accepted but to my mind still count as
> democratic issues.
No, no no!!! Maybe I should change the statement to say I disagree with
everything that the modern Democratic Party stands for: Class warfare/envy,
Affirmative Action, no responsibility for anything, big government, big taxes,
race warfare, etc., everything "for the children", Abortion paid for by
government, welfare "rights", social security, etc.
Maybe I associate most liberals to be on the Democratic side rather than the
Republican side. I despise everything liberalism is and what it stands for. I am
and always will be a moral, and economic conservative. That is what I meant.
There are a few Democrats I would gladly vote for (Ugh, what is his name, big
time conservative, in the House of Rep, from Ohio!) and some Republicans I won't
vote for.
I agree everyone, regardless of race, sex, religious background, etc. should
have equal protection. I do not agree that because I am black or homosexual or a
woman, that means that I DESERVE special privileges, such as lowering of
standards to get into college, or the military, etc. That is wrong. I really
don't think leftism supports this, they thrive on treating people different,
whether you are rich, etc. As far as I can remember, Lincoln ended slavery,
there were a lot of both Republican and Democratic people on both sides of the
issue. The biggest segregationists were Southern Democrats, however. I think
slavery was horrid, and segregation equally as bad, and I am glad people stood
up for that and got it changed. Don't use that, however, for ever single issue,
because it is not prevalent anymore. It's history, learn from it, and never
repeat it.
Is that better? :)
Scott Sanburn
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> Christopher L. Weeks
> central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) In what way do you disagree with my take on democracy? It's the rule of the people - by vote - so as long as 51% of the people who vote think it's OK to kill me, then politically (if not morally) it is. Right? Wrong? Libertopia would be an (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
